Search

Background: Caring for terminally ill patients with minor children can be very stressful. The perceived quality of life is significantly influenced by the Meaning in Life (MiL). No studies were found that focus on the prioritized special needs of this patient group. Objectives: The aim is to compare and contrast terminally ill parents with minor children and palliative care patients in Germany, in order to provide appropriate support beyond medical, nursing or therapeutic interventions. Methods: Terminally ill parents diagnosed were surveyed using a validated instrument 'Schedule for Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMiLE)'. The study listed various areas that contribute to the MiL, followed by an evaluation of their importance and satisfaction levels. The researchers then compared these findings with data collected from palliative care patients. Results: In Germany, 54 patients, mostly female and with a mean age of 43, were included in this study between February 2017 and September 2020. The median age of the 96 children during the survey phase was 7 years. The comparison group consists of 100 palliative care patients in Germany; mostly aged 50 years and older. For terminally ill patients most important areas were in decreasing order family (100%), social relations (80%), leisure time (61%), nature/animals (39%) and home/garden (30%). Although the overall indices are close between both groups, there are significant and highly correlated differences between them. Parents felt limited by their illness in being a mother or father, as they wanted to be. Conclusion: The involvement with SMiLE led patients to consider their coping resources. The areas relevant to terminally ill parents differed from those relevant to palliative care patients. All participants identified family as the most important factor for MiL. The results suggest that evaluating MiL can serve as a coping strategy and help terminally ill parents with minor children. Plain language summary: A comparison of answers to the meaning in life from seriously ill parents with young children with the answers of other seriously ill patients Background: Caring for seriously ill patients with young children can be very stressful. The quality of life depends on meaning in life. No studies were found that focus on the needs of this patients. Objectives: The aim was to explore similarities and differences between seriously ill parents with young children and palliative care patients in Germany to find the best way to support them. Methods: The Meaning in Life questions were used to find this out. Two researchers asked seriously ill parents about different things that make their lives meaningful. The researchers then compared the results with data from other seriously ill patients in need of palliative care. In Germany, 54 seriously ill parents with young children were interviewed between February 2017 and September 2020. The children were usually seven years old. The compared group consisted of 100 palliative care patients and was mostly older than 49 years. For seriously ill patients most important were family, social relations, leisure time, nature/animals, and home/garden. The values seemed similar, but there are clear differences between the groups. Parents felt their illness limited them in being a mother or a father. Conclusion: The questions helped patients helped to remember meaning in life and set goals. The things that mattered to seriously ill parents were different from those that mattered to palliative care patients. All participants said that family was the most important thing for meaning in life. The results show that thinking about meaning in life can help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Resilience is an increasingly used term in medicine and subject to various definitions, often not easy to grasp. There are established core concepts for patients receiving palliative care, for example, meaning in life, that have already been researched a lot. Resilience, relative to these concepts, is a new object of research in palliative care, where it has so far been used predominantly with regard to the well-being of teams. Aim: To explore how experts in palliative care define the concept of resilience and its suitability for patients, significant others, and professionals. Design: Qualitative study using summarizing content analysis according to Mayring. Setting/participants: Twenty-one health and social care professionals with expertise caring for persons with life-threatening/limiting illnesses and their relatives were interviewed in three individual interviews and four focus groups. All conversations were recorded, transcribed, coded via MAXQDA, and validated by another researcher. Results: Resilience has been described as something procedural, dynamic, individual, and flexible. In connection with well-known concepts such as posttraumatic growth or terms from the field of mindfulness, social environment or personal factors have also been linked to resilience. Resources such as spirituality can contribute to resilience, and resilience itself can function as a resource, for example, by contributing to quality of life. An active use of the term in practical work with patients or relatives is rare, but it is used in education or team measures. Limited lifespan can pose a challenge to an active use of the concept of resilience. Conclusion: Resilience as a very individual approach provides added value to other core concepts of palliative care. Within the palliative context, the normative dimension of resilience must be well reflected. A broader definition of resilience is recommended, leaving room for everyone to find their own form of resilience. The concept of resilience in palliative care includes opportunities as well as risks and should, therefore, be implemented carefully, requiring specific training. Plain language summary: What experts think about resilience in palliative care Why was this study done? Resilience is described as a process of coping with stress or adversity while remaining physically and mentally functional. Resilience is subject to a range of definitions. In the context of palliative care, where many other concepts, such as meaning in life, are already used, the definition of resilience also represents a challenge. We wanted to learn how people working in palliative care, defined by us as experts, understand and use the concept of resilience. In addition, there are three different target groups for resilience: patients, significant others and professionals. We wanted to learn about the differences in the application of resilience to these groups. What did the researchers do? We conducted interviews with a total of 21 experts in individual and group settings (so-called focus groups). All interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim to analyse them precisely using qualitative methods. What did the researchers find? This study shows how resilience is understood in the work field of the participants: namely as something procedural, dynamic, individual and flexible but normative at the same time. Factors such as the social environment, the number and intensity of crises already experienced (known as the idea of posttraumatic growth), aspects from the field of mindfulness or spirituality can contribute to developing resilience, which is why we call these things resources for resilience. Experts use the term resilience less in their daily work with patients or significant others, but more in education. What do the findings mean? The concept of resilience in palliative care involves both risks and opportunities. Practical work with the concept has to be well reflected and must be applied sensitively. Therefore, it is essential that professional as well as informal caregivers receive specific training that also includes respect for each individual's personal concept of resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a significant challenge to professional responders in healthcare settings. This is reflected in the language used to describe the pandemic in the professional literature of the respective professions. The aim of this multidisciplinary study was to analyze the linguistic imagery in the relevant professional literature and to determine the identification of different professional groups with it and its emotional effects. Method: A list of 14 typical, widespread and differing imageries for COVID-19 in form of single sentences (e.g., "Until the pandemic is over, we can only run on sight.") were presented to 1,795 healthcare professionals in an online survey. The imageries had been extracted from a qualitative search in more than 3,500 international professional journals in medicine, psychology and theology. Ratings of agreement with these imageries and feelings about them were subjected to factor analysis. Results: Based on the list of imageries presented, it was possible to identify three factors for high/low agreement by experiences, and two factors for high/low induced feelings. Broad agreement emerged for imageries on "fight against the crisis" and "lessons learned from the crisis", while imageries on "acceptance of uncontrollability" tended to be rejected. Imageries of "challenges" tended to lead to a sense of empowerment among subjects, while imageries of "humility" tended to lead to a sense of helplessness. Conclusion: Based on the qualitative and subsequential quantitative analysis, several factors for imageries for the COVID-19 pandemic were identified that have been used in the literature. Agreement with imageries is mixed, as is the assessment of how helpful they are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. Aim: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. Design: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. Setting: European. Participants: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. Results: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. Conclusions: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]